Creationism To Be In Gcse Papers

[Chris P]

I like this one too, he takes questions from university students.

qR_z85O0P2M

He reminds me of Carl Sagan, I agree with Dr Rockster, he doesn't sound fanatical, that is what religious people are, his arguments are sound and he bases his opinions on science which is backed by evidence and not religious books.

He is just trying to talk some sense into peoples extreme views of religion.

One really good bit in there he talks about all the different religions all thinking they are right, his answer was really funny.

Edited June 10, 2007 by ChrystalFarmer

[Hawksok]

Ah, sorry Doc I weren't talking about his scientific work as that's just brilliant from what I've seen. It's his forays into theology that I meant.

Saying that I haven't read the Atheist Delusion, I based my opinion on the Ch4 documentary of the same name where he really did come across as fanatical about his beliefs, he was foaming at the mouth, red faced with fiery hatred for any and all religions.

'Doh doh.gif it was man.' That's what I meant yeah.

[Punky]

Complete load of bollocks IMO, creationism is up there with scientology, David Ickes and all the other fuckin nutter cults. Biology should be pure science, not religious-based speculation and lies. I'm a Darwinist through and through, and there is too much evidence for me to think otherwise. By forcing none-scientific material into a science paper just to forward an age-old religious fantasy is immoral and thoroughly wrong.

[Guest Gert Lush]

Seems to me like all the people who don't understand science but understand the conept of God want to beleive in science, wheras all the people that understand the science beleive in God.

How excellently well put!

(And how preposterously misunderstood subsequently guess that's always the way!)

Straight to the top of the class, that man!

[Guest Gert Lush]

I think there's a major problem here, and that is that "Creationism" has not been sufficiently defined.

If you're talking about an old geezer with a white beard (and a meddlesome attitude) cobbling the world together, than fair enough, that's obviously a load of shite.

However, it's not nearly that simple, really, is it?

A lot of people have already made some sort of mention of a mystical side to things, and this is something that all hardcore retrograde Neo-Darwinists reject out of hand. In that respect NeoDarwinism is just as much a superstition as Fundamentalist Christianity (and with the same bully-boy attitude, BTW), since it is quite happy both to make pronouncements that are well-outside its remit, and also to willingly turn a blind eye to evidence that does not suit it. In this it is an absolute shocker, really.

You have to remember that "Darwinism" leveraged a lot of well-dodgy philosophies in order to rise to its present status including the worst racial aspects of both Imperialism and Nazism. Of course, we're the "super-race" Darwinism proves it with its "survival of the fittest" and duh, who looks like the fittest to you. This might not be the case any more (or very little, anyway) but the point is that Darwinism RODE on this wave to establish itself.

As a result, most people today when they hear of "evolution" AUTOMATICALLY equate it with Darwinism, or more likely ultra-reductionist NeoDarwinism. This is simply not true, and a tragic error, IMHO.

There are several other Non-Darwinian scientific models of evolution, the main ones being centred around the theories of Lamarck. The basic difference was that Lamarck felt that the conditions in which an organism lived COULD influence future genotypes, in other words evolution could also be "learned" so to speak, it wasn't simply a blind "pure-luck" reductionist process. Of course, this concept is pure anathema (nay, the "Devil" himself ) to Neo-Darwinists, although it probably wasn't that unacceptable to Darwin. You have to remember that neither Darwin nor Lamarck had the benefit of hindsight that we do, with sciences like genetics and DNA already established.

Anyway, what seems to happen these days, if anyone tries to engage a NeoDarwinist in any sort of scientific debate about things trhat give the lie to entrenched Darwinist beliefs, the usual result is a chorus of screams of "Creationist"!

And I'm not even referring to "spiritual" type ideas, like the posibility of nature spirits, or an Intelligence in Nature (that just causes apoplexy ), but to the several case studies that are already appearing, eg hydra/microstomum, african fig, etc...

Where there is NO way for an evolution to happen through selection, as intermediate stages are guaranteed to die.

These are serious queries and can not get explained away easily and simplistically like the "eye" or some long snouted moth.

However the reaction of most NeoDarwinists to what after all is a completely valid scientific speculation (i.e. does nature contain/display intelligence) is hardly scientific - far more in the style of rabid frothing-at-the-mouth mullahs, if you ask me. No wonder they "hate" religion so much - it must remind them of their style ever so.

====

Personally I think we're still quite far from understanding how it all works, there's bound to be some truth from Darwinism (in its sane form) in there, but there are so many other things to discover still, and witch-hunts and the branding of anyone who tries to discover them as "Creationist" is way out there, as far as unhelpful goes.

Edited June 11, 2007 by Gert Lush

[Guest Gert Lush]

OK, you can probably guess from the length of the above post that this is one of my favourite subjects, but never mind I'll try to pose one simple queestion, which may (or may not ) clarify things.

Here goes:-

- Would you consider anyone who thinks there might be some Intelligence in Nature (in whatever form) to be a "Creationist"?

[Guest Gert Lush]

@dr rockster

You may hate me for saying this, but I think you may be so into Dawkins on account of recovering from Catholicism. See Dawkins is the Anti-Catholic in some ways, and his intense involvement manifests Catholic thinking at every step. I'd even say Jesuit, but I'm not sure whether he's smart enough for that It's almost like you've sought out the complete opposite, IOW.

What I would recommend is some sort of middle ground, which can accomodate ideas like Dawkins' evolutionary mechanisms (with which I have no problem and think that they're rather brilliant, actually) AND a more open-minded approach that will let us examine those phenomena where even astronomical probabilities do not allow them to be interpretted comfortably.

Basically what I'm saying is that we can't leave deep thinking out of the equation - glib, reductionist shite is for ladies' fashion mags and the Mail.

And we really don't need people frothing at the mouth - whatever "Camp" they belong to.

[Guest Gert Lush]

Hey, maybe we need a science/biology section.

There seem to be quite a few interested parties.

[Guest lifeizfab]

*sorry duplicate post*

Edited June 11, 2007 by lifeizfab

[Guest lifeizfab]

*sorry duplicate post*

Edited June 11, 2007 by lifeizfab

[Chris P]

OK, you can probably guess from the length of the above post that this is one of my favourite subjects, but never mind I'll try to pose one simple queestion, which may (or may not ) clarify things.

Here goes:-

- Would you consider anyone who thinks there might be some Intelligence in Nature (in whatever form) to be a "Creationist"?

As you'll no doubt remember from my thread on evolution, I'm intrested in the subject too

I've still got the "Great Evolution Mystery" books upstairs to read that you recommended last time and like with anything, I am willing to look at all sides in an objective manner to draw my own conclusions.

I picked up on this thread again yesterday when I seen the creationist museum on tv. I try to not mock the afflicted but I can't help it when they're showing kids playing with dinosaurs, the one university has a dinosaur bone with a label on it saying it's 3000 years old

Like you said we should really define what creationism is.

To me, and when I use the word creationist, I am referring to the literal interpretation of religious scripts on the creation of the world and how people take seriously word for word as the truth and then preach it to other people. as facts, so the answer to your question is "No", as I use the word, I would call you a Realist not a Creationist.

Edited June 11, 2007 by ChrystalFarmer

[Guest dr rockster]

OK, you can probably guess from the length of the above post that this is one of my favourite subjects, but never mind I'll try to pose one simple queestion, which may (or may not ) clarify things.

Here goes:-

- Would you consider anyone who thinks there might be some Intelligence in Nature (in whatever form) to be a "Creationist"?

No Gert my friend,not at all.

When I speak of creationism I mean the Genesis one,let there be light,Adam and bloody Eve,with Eve ending up taking some bad advice from a snake and Noah who put all 10 billion species in a wooden boat and then dropped them off on certain land masses.

As regards Darwinism,I don't say it's perfect but it fits the facts a leetle beet better than any other theory at present.

We've got an amazing fucking universe which with our increasing knowledge the pieces will keep bit by bit falling into place.

But Gert you probably are right about me and Catholicism.Sorry if I sound a little strident when I talk of creationism but it's the white beard

version I'll put my hands up to having a pop at.

I also have personal issues with my local parish priest who was more worried about his congregation getting upset by my mothers eccentricities when attending mass as she was bi polar most of her life and a devout catholic which resulted in her delusions being of extreme religious mania which made for some rather difficult situations as she was acting bizarrely most of the time.

So I went with my sister to see this priest who turned out to be a spineless prick in a man dress who did'nt once ask how my Mum was and was wringing his hands over this awful(in his eyes)problem that might scare any of the rich fat white tories who came to this church.

honestly,not once did this worm of a person think:What would Jesus do?

Na,he just wanted to usher us out with a forked vermin stick,making sure we don't bring my Mum back.

So my contempt,yes contempt for the catholic church is based on personal experience and the church treating my Mother as a problem rather than a person is just one experience of many as I went to a School with Catholic priests and I'd need the rest of the day to type out some of the shit I and others went through.Learning scripture parrot fashion with the cane as punishment if you could'nt repeat it the next day was just one of their perversions.

I've no problem with gay peeps but I do have a problem with gays in man dresses working in all boy schools.

The catholic church is a spreader of aids,another thing that does my head in.

Sorry I'll stop there as this isnt meant to be a why I hate the catholic church thread but I put this down Gert in response to your rather perceptive analysis of me vis a vis the vatican!

Right,back on topic.

Hmm life the universe an efferfink............................

..........well when I finally became a humanist,rejecting the Christian explanation of things,well it was like a spiritual epiphany,well not quite like finding God,like I have joked about in other threads on this subject but I did get a kind of high brought on by my new mindset,a happy feeling,an unfettering of sorts.

I'm in a really weird headspace this morning,really not quite right so I hope this post isnt out of order for any reason.

Bad back and couldnt sleep.Feel like I've been on amphetamines all week or drunk a 1000 cups of coffee,really jangly.

Peace

Rockster

[snowdog]

We are infact indivdual aliens.The planet strated of 4 billion years ago and derived form particles.The stars do they look like organised kaos...Also remember seeing some guys on t.v using one of the reading machines.Radiography or something were it like xrays the planet and there finding were it is 4 billion years old.Can i get my GCSE grade now .Oh and you`ve reminded me i have dvd on that the dates in the bible colide with the creation of the planet just a shame many scientist fail to agree.

[Guest Gert Lush]

@ dr rockster, ChrystalFarmer,

Hi guys, thanks for the feedback, and I'm glad I didn't give offence! :wink:

Indeed, CF, the definition of "Creationist" has to be clarified, so we don't end up with it meaning something silly, like ANYONE who questions ANY aspects of reductionist NeoDarwinism.

NeoDarwinism has its place, in fact its contribution is probably invaluable at times, especially in the explanation of small-scale localised evolutionary phenomena. But it doesn't really tackle the questions of "origin of species", at least in no less speculative a way than any other school of thought.

However I think that for most self-styled "Darwinists", the idea of any intelligence in Nature is an absolute no-no, and an edict of faith. I don't like edicts of faith, they remind me of.... what was it now... oh, yes, Religion.

So to jump up and down, screaming all the while, "It was pure chance I tell you, pure chance and nothing else, and anyone that says otherwise will rot in Hell, mwaahahahaha!" is a bit rich, to say the least.

Let's just stick to an impartial observation and detailing of the facts, I'm sure that will be so much more profitable.

[Guest Gert Lush]

We are infact indivdual aliens.

Try not to use the words "In fact" when you are merely speculating. It's a bad habit that fuels fanaticism.

How did you deduce that we are "aliens" - which means "foreigners" as you may well know?

Are you saying we came from somewhere else? What's your basis for saying so, "in fact"?